Incident Tracker / United States (federal)
Guerra-Quezada v. United States (with Guerra-Vasquez v. United States), Nos. 25-10372 and 25-10555 (5th Cir.)
·US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·US-FEDWarning
In consolidated appeals by an uncle and nephew claiming US citizenship, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit identified fabricated quotations and misattributed authorities in both briefs, including language attributed to Ng Fung Ho v. White found in no opinion. It treated the affected arguments as forfeited and warned counsel that FRAP 28 prohibits citing nonexistent authority.
- Court
- US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Date
- 2026-08-14
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- Appellants' counsel quoted Ng Fung Ho v. White for language found in no opinion, cited Doe v. McAleenan as a Fourth Circuit case when it is a Seventh Circuit decision, and misattributed a Perez v. Brownell dissent to Afroyim v. Rusk.
- Outcome
- Warning
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-03
What was fabricated or misused
- Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284 (1922) — purported quotation “[N]o deportable alien may be expelled until it has first been determined . . . that he is in fact an alien” was not located in Ng Fung Ho or any other opinion
- Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922) — phrase “[i]t is wrong to deport a United States citizen” does not appear in the opinion
- Guerra-Vasquez opening brief parenthetical to Ng Fung Ho — cited the correct part but misquoted the majority
- Doe v. McAleenan, 926 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2019) — cited as a Fourth Circuit opinion starting on a different Federal Reporter page
- Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) — quote actually came from Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 64 (1958) (Warren, C.J., dissenting)
What the court said
“They are completely unsubstantiated by citations to the record, and the case citations in the briefing are systematically defective.”
“This court’s research has failed to locate this quote in Ng Fung Ho or in any other opinion.”
“Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 requires all filed briefs to contain arguments supported by “citations to the authorities,” disallowing citation to nonexistent or fabricated cases.”
“The court takes no action now for the foregoing deficiencies, but counsel must take this obligation seriously in the future.”
Timeline
- Fifth Circuit filed its opinion in the consolidated appeals.
- Panel treated due-process arguments as forfeited because record and case citations were defective.
- Panel identified fabricated Ng Fung Ho language, Doe circuit error and Perez-Afroyim misattribution.
- Panel warned counsel under FRAP 28 and 46 but took no disciplinary action.
Why this case matters
Guerra-Quezada shows the Fifth Circuit using forfeiture and warning, not a separate sanctions order, when false quotations appear inside merits briefing. Unlike Capital Standard v U.S. Bank, there was no fine or referral; unlike Ruiz v Magellan, the court did not issue a public reprimand. The opinion still records specific defects: invented Ng Fung Ho language, a circuit misidentification, and a quote moved from a Perez dissent to Afroyim. Because the disputed claims involved citizenship and removal, the citation failures affected a high-stakes appeal while the court was also deciding jurisdiction. The entry helps distinguish appellate discipline warnings from cases where courts impose monetary or professional sanctions.
Practice note
For immigration and citizenship appeals, counsel should check every quoted sentence against the official U.S. Reports or Federal Reporter text and verify the court, page and precedential status of each citation. A quote from a dissent should be labelled as a dissent and not moved to a later majority decision. Record citations must be checked at the same time.
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Hill v. Foundation Media LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05947 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. 2026)2026-09-29 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · WarningIn New York federal court, Judge Arun Subramanian ordered defence counsel to explain AI-affected quotations in a response brief, took no further action, and called the episode a wakeup call. Counsel's 1 October letter d…
- G.P. v. Jose Hernandez Arevalo, No. C26-284-KKE (W.D. Wash.)2026-09-08 · US District Court, Western District of Washington · WarningIn the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, plaintiff's counsel cited a nonexistent federal case in briefing against Turo. Judge Evanson described the citation as likely AI-fabricated, compelled arb…
- Williams v. Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Board, No. 4:26-cv-00433-P (N.D. Tex.)2026-08-27 · US District Court, Northern District of Texas · WarningIn the Northern District of Texas, plaintiffs' counsel cited nonexistent and materially inapposite cases while trying to defeat qualified immunity. Judge Pittman called the effort borderline sanctionable, warned that ge…
- Shelbert v. Baxter International, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-06266 (N.D. Ill.)2026-08-26 · US District Court, Northern District of Illinois · WarningIn the Northern District of Illinois, Tyler Shelbert's lawyer filed a motion to strike that relied on a false reading of Instituto Nacional de Comercializacion Agricola. Chief Judge Kendall inferred AI-assisted drafting…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Guerra-Quezada v. United States (with Guerra-Vasquez v. United States), Nos. 25-10372 and 25-10555 (5th Cir.)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/guerra-quezada-v-united-states (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.